Quash of order denying ITC by limitation: taxpayers allowed ITC for FY2017-18 to 2020-21 under Section 16(5) overriding 16(4)

The HC quashed the impugned order insofar as it disallowed input tax credit (ITC) barred by limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, holding that petitioners are entitled to avail ITC for returns (FY 2017-18 to 2020-21) within the period prescribed by newly inserted Section 16(5) (retrospective from 01.07.2017) and restrained the department from initiating any proceedings against the petitioners on the limitation issue. The petition was allowed.

---

---

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) within the prescribed time limit.2. Whether the impugned orders of the respondent-Department, reversing the petitioner's claim of ITC and directing payment of tax/penalty/interest, are sustainable.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Entitlement to Claim ITC- Relevant legal framework: Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered the challenges faced by the petitioners in filing returns due to various reasons such as financial constraints, health-related issues, and natural disasters. The Court noted the amendment to Section 16 of the CGST Act, allowing for the retrospective extension of the deadline for availing ITC.- Key evidence and findings: The Court highlighted the provisions of Section 16(4) and the subsequent insertion of Section 16(5) allowing for the availing of ITC until November 30, 2021, for certain financial years.- Application of law to facts: The Court applied the amended provisions of the CGST Act to allow the petitioners to avail ITC within the extended deadline.- Conclusions: The Court quashed the impugned orders related to the claim of ITC by the petitioners within the limitation period specified in Section 16(5) of the CGST Act.Issue 2: Sustainability of Impugned Orders- Relevant legal framework: Provisions of the CGST Act, 2017- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered the validity of the impugned orders in light of the subsequent developments and amendments to the CGST Act. It emphasized the importance of compliance with the amended provisions.- Key evidence and findings: The Court noted the recommendations of the GST Council, the amendments to Section 16 of the CGST Act, and the subsequent notifications and circulars issued by the authorities.- Application of law to facts: The Court held that the impugned orders were no longer sustainable in light of the amendments to the CGST Act and the extended deadline for availing ITC.- Conclusions: The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondent-Department to take necessary steps to release frozen bank accounts of the petitioners and refund any tax amounts collected based on the impugned orders.Significant Holdings:- The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to avail ITC within the extended deadline provided by the amended provisions of the CGST Act.- The impugned orders reversing the petitioner's claim of ITC were quashed, and the respondent-Department was restrained from initiating further proceedings based on the issue of limitation.In conclusion, the Court allowed the Writ Petition on the grounds that the petitioners were entitled to claim ITC within the extended deadline and that the impugned orders were no longer sustainable in light of the amendments to the CGST Act. The Court directed the respondent-Department to take appropriate actions in accordance with the Court's orders.

---